Paul Brown responds to abuse allegations

May 28, 2013

Paul Brown

OPINION By PAUL BROWN

It came to my attention today that my ex-wife, Jayne Isaacs, has sent out an email attacking my character in the final three weeks of this special election. While the ugliness of our divorce and the related proceedings from 2007 are long in the past for me, I am compelled to respond to statements made in her email.

-The allegations of abuse were investigated by the San Luis Obispo District Attorney’s Office and found to be without merit.

-Commissioner Perry, who presided over our divorce and placed the restraining order, rescinded (removed) the order eighteen months before it was scheduled to expire. Perry stated he didn’t feel I was a threat either now or when the order was originally placed, but felt he needed to, at the time, err on the side of caution.

-If the accusations were true, I would not be able to work as a police officer in the state of California. I have successfully passed four background investigation processes and have never been denied employment as a law enforcement officer based on anything in my personal history.

I regret the public has to have all this “dirty laundry” aired, once again, because of the election. I feel it is regrettable that accusations like this are used as a tool in divorce and politics because it takes away from those who truly need protection from physical abuse.

If any members of the media or public want to contact me regarding this issue, please call my cell phone (805) 550-1661.

129 Comments

What I don’t get is why anyone would seriously consider voting for a candidate who is so careless he left loaded guns, unlocked, in his car console, from which the guns were stolen. One of the guns was a semiautomatic, with a bullet in the chamber, and ammunition next to it.

Seriously? Who in the world would want such a careless doofus as a city council member?

Carrying a semiautomatic sidearm “cocked and locked” (hammer back, safety on) or even “cocked and unlocked” (handguns with no separate safety or hammer such as the Glock) is a widely accepted way of safely carrying a firearm.

You weren’t aware of this fact yet you still tried to gig Brown? Shame on you.

Further, there is no prohibition (even here in CA) of having “ammunition next to it (a gun)” in this context for anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

Maybe you should consider doing some research before going off half-cocked (no pun)?

What you and many others of your circle don’t seem to understand, is the FACT of the ramifications of leaving said guns and ammo in an unlocked car!

It was in Paul’s neighborhood. Get it? They were stolen. Get it? Barring the fact that his guns were stolen by persons that could use them in a crime, THERE WERE CHILDREN WITHIN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD HAVE FOUND THEM!

I would suggest that you do some logical conclusions before you open your mouth upon this topic again. We thank you for considering this new aspect in your life and look forward to it’s implication.

What a mixed up world we live in. With all the talk about a “Democratic Conspiracy”, It looks to me that it is a coalition of RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS who are trying to secure a council seat for Paul Brown by any means necessary, unconcerned as to whether Paul Brown has any vital character flaws.

Again, I’m not saying I know who is to blame in the Brown domestic situation, and I think it is best for all concerned to move on from that, but what I do object to is that it is somehow unfair if a coalition of Democratic voters support Brown’s opponent, while at the same time some people here are ignoring the obvious fact that right wing ideologues are relentlessly attacking Brown’s opponent and doing everything they can to deflect criticism against Brown, even to the point they are ganging up to relentlessly attack the character of Brown’s ex-wife.

As I’ve said before, regardless of Brown’s suitability for the council seat, I find it repugnant to elect him for the simple reason that it will reward and further encourage the despicable behavior of some of his most ardent supporters. It seems that a vote for Brown will be a vote for extremists such as Kevin P. Rice, Roger Freberg and the mean-spirited, divisive characters who stink up the local forums under such names as SamLouis, SloShank, rOy, isoslo, and others. Do we really want THOSE kind of people steering the direction of SLO and the council meetings?

They got divorced SEVEN years ago yet this is brought up now, during the midst of an election? It’s meant as a political hit piece and nothing more. That’s lowlife politics at its absolute worst. That says a great deal negative about Christianson and her Democratic Central Committee/Planned Parenthood handlers and supporters.

On the positive side this political attack made me aware that Christianson is the former executive director of the Planned Parenthood abortion mill on Pismo Street in SLO. That sordid fact plus her association with the Democratic Central Committee and her continued association with Planned Parenthood and the evil that comes with that makes Brown an easy choice.

YOUR QUOTE: “That sordid fact plus her association with the Democratic Central Committee and her continued association with Planned Parenthood and the evil that comes with that makes Brown an easy choice.”

Relative to Planned Parenthood, and in like manner, you are stating that it is evil for Christians to endorse their God who has aborted and killed thousands of innocent babies throughout the bible?! If you’re an assumed Christian, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, sorry!

The bible God slays the fruit of the womb of the women in Ephraim, which equals abortion. (Hosea 9:11-16)

God’s inspired word allows a brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife that is “suspected” of adultery, which equals an induced abortion. (Numbers 5:11-21)

God orders the killing of women that have been with men, which equals aborting of fetus’ of pregnant women. (Numbers 31:17)

God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers. (Hosea 13:16)

God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say their form of God is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, aborted, and killed, yet still claim abortion is wrong? (2 Kings 15:16)

God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing. (1 Samuel 15:3)

When would you have preferred it brought up, SamLouis/SloShank/KevinRice?

It’s part of Brown’s personal history and it is only natural that a candidate’s personal history is scrutinized during an election campaign. Why should it be any different?

What is despicable is the vindictive, mean-spirited, selfish extremist propagandists like you who use Brown’s candidacy as a forum to spew your extremist messages and attack non-candidates like Brown’s ex-wife.

As I’ve said before, even if Paul Brown is a saint, it would be a shame to reward people like you by electing him.

If Brown knew what was good for him, he would go even further in trying to distance himself from the wild-eyed extremist faction and denounce people like you. That’s what poor Ed Waage should have done when you tried to pull the same krapola during the Supervisor’s race.

If Brown is going to be helping you do your dirty work in SLO politics, it would be wise for everyone concerned to vote for his opponent who so wisely has stayed above the ugly fray and has remained focused and classy.

They were divorced SEVEN YEARS AGO and NOW it becomes an issue? That’s nasty muck-racking by Christianson’s handlers and supporters, namely the Democratic Central Committee and the abortion group Planned Parenthood.

The delicious unintended consequence of Christianson’s dirty politics is that it will become far better known that she once managed the abortion mill on Pismo Street in SLO. I certainly don’t want someone who could hold such a job on the city council. I want someone with a well formed conscience.

Actually, it has been an issue all along, from seven years ago all the way until now. People haven’t forgotten and still talk about it. You’re not doing Brown any favors by lengthening the dialogue about it.

A person’s personal history never “expires”. It’s only logical and expected that such things would be scrutinized when a person is a candidate running for office. That gives the candidate with the controversial background a chance to show the public how they deal with it. Some candidates subsequently shine and people start feeling better about them, others don’t.

This type of scrutiny tests a candidate’s character and leads to better candidates being elected.

What the public does NOT want to see is a candidate obviously trying to hide the unsavory aspects of his background or employing a coalition of people trying to cover up relevant facts and demonizing those who want the facts brought to light critical election season.

What voters don’t want to do is reward those who perpetuate the cover-up and demonization.

Well, let us see….Paul Brown is running for office NOW so information about him and his past is NOW pertinent.

There is a LOT of information about candidates that sees the light of day in election season. That is because people are interested in what kind of people are running for office. Knowing their background helps make good voting decisions.

I can’t think of a situation where I would vote for someone who was involved in a domestic violence assault. This is especially true if he continued to have anger management issues, even when he was a member of a city council.

What makes it worse was Brown’s angry outburst occurred when a member of the public was speaking during “public comment.” Brown tried to take control of what was being said and stop it.

This should raise great, big warning flags to any voter. The very least we should be able to expect from our elected politicians is their ability to control themselves in meetings and be able to refrain from abusive behavior to the public.

It is a shame to see a man with such little respect for the Judicial System. So little respect for the judge that deemed him dangerous enough to implement a restraining order in the first place. Restraining orders are NOT easy to acquire, in the slightest. If they implemented one he more than likely deserved it, regardless of how long it was implemented.

It’s also unfortunate that he’s playing his part as the seemingly nonchalant “abuser”, belittling a court’s rulings and his ex-wife’s proven claims. Sounds like Paul didn’t learn enough in his anger management classes.

Please explain your statement “It is a shame to see a man with such little respect for the Judicial System.”. What has he done that he such little respect for the J S? Seems that he has followed the rule book but do tell us if that is incorrect. Regarding restraining orders, they are really not that difficult to get and fortunately our judges/commissioners seem to error on the side of caution as it should be. But you made an opening regarding disrespect for the J S and I’m sure we would like to know what that is…

Actually, a restraining order is not difficult to acquire. The process can be daunting to people unused to hanging around courthouses, but it isn’t necessary to prove that the person being restrained committed any crime.

Are you kidding me? Spousal restraining orders are quite easy to obtain, and for those who know the procedures set forth by the judicial council, they can be a very nasty weapon to seriously harm the other party for a short period of time and to gain the upper hand over the property in a divorce, especially when that party doesn’t even know what’s coming.

What raises red flags for me is Brown’s angry outburst during a city council meeting, targeting and attempting to control a member of the public who was speaking during the “public comment” portion of the meeting.

If he can’t control himself when there are lots of witnesses, a big question is whether or not he can control himself when there are no witnesses.

City council members have lots of power. Brown has already shown he has no problems with abusing power he has over other people. He does not belong in a position where that kind of opportunity can occur.

OK, even is this really is a deep, dark Democratic Party conspiracy cooked up in a back room, why would that persuade a Carlyn Christianson supporter to vote for Paul Brown?

This is a legitimate question. I wonder if anyone can provide a reasonable answer, not based on a personal attack or the lame excuse that it is not worthy of a legitimate answer because the questioner is not using his “real” name.

Why would it persuade them to change their vote? Well, an attentive person might be concerned that the party machine is trying to guide local politics, and considering the power that potentially gives a party in influencing the long term voting in an area (not to mention strategic positions allowing access to things like voting tabulation servers), that should be really disconcerting to anyone who thinks that a) parties and especially finances accompanying that don’t belong in local politics and b) fascism and single party systems aren’t good.

It looks to me that it is a coalition of RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS who are trying to secure a council seat for Paul Brown by any means necessary, unconcerned as to whether Paul Brown has any vital character flaws.

rOy, it is not vast. It is small, petty and mean, and can be observed in your posts, Roger Freberg’s and in the one’s by Kevin Rice and all his on-line disguises. Yes, there are a few others also who are trying to spread the virus, but it is certainly not “vast” by any means.

Poor Paul Brown. It sickens me to realize that Paul forgot all about his bible when married to Jayne. If in fact they weren’t getting along, and she became quarrelsome because of it, then he should have followed this biblical doctrine; “Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.” [Proverbs 21:19]

Obviously Paul never told his wife that he was in complete control of her in every way: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

The key words to the above passage are “everything” and “submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” These phrases would include any beatings that may have had to occur if Paul Brown did beat his wife. In any event, to substantiate the beating of wives, we have; “Young people take pride in their strength, but the gray hairs of wisdom are even more beautiful. A severe beating can knock all of the evil out of you!” (Proverbs 20:29-30) Furthermore; “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” (1 Timothy 2:11) and “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) Men are the head of their wives, therefore, anything goes!

If Paul is guilty of wife beating, then he was just following biblical doctrine and gets a pass from the Hebrew-Christian God. This is because if you actually read the bible’s atrocities against women, it makes Paul Brown look like a boy scout even if he was guilty of spousal abuse!